Bill 6 replaces subsection 38(5) of the Children’s Law Act to authorize the Minister to designate one or more persons to serve as clinicians who assess and report to the court under section 38(1), and it tweaks subsection 38(9) to refer to “a clinician” instead of “the clinician.” The designation must occur in consultation with the Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The change is narrowly drafted but important for family- and child-protection practice: it places nomination power for court assessment clinicians in the executive branch (with judicial consultation) rather than leaving the process solely to courts or existing practice. That affects who the courts receive assessments from, how clinicians are selected and managed, and how jurisdictions should prepare administrative, procurement and oversight arrangements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes the Minister (after consulting with the province’s two chief justices) to designate one or more persons as clinicians to perform assessments and report to the court under the Act’s assessment provision. It also amends the Act’s language to allow reference to “a clinician.”
Who It Affects
Family court parties, court staff, child protection agencies, and professionals who perform psychosocial or forensic child assessments will be directly affected; the Department of Justice will absorb administrative responsibility for maintaining any designated roster. Judges who order assessments will receive reports from persons designated under the Minister’s process.
Why It Matters
By centralizing designation authority, the bill creates a government-managed channel for supplying court-ordered clinicians, which can standardize access but also raises questions about independence, selection criteria, and administrative capacity—matters that will shape how quickly and reliably courts get assessments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amended provision focuses on who the province names to do court-ordered child assessments and how those people get into the system. Rather than leaving selection solely to a court process or to ad hoc arrangements, the statute will now make the Minister the named authority for designating clinicians, but requires the Minister to consult the two chief justices.
The alteration is brief in text but transfers a key administrative responsibility to government.
Because the bill allows designation of “one or more persons,” it contemplates a roster or multiple appointees rather than a single court-appointed expert. That opens the door to centrally managed lists of clinicians, recurring contracts, or standing appointment arrangements; it also allows multiple professionals to carry out assessments under the same statutory stream.
The change from “the clinician” to “a clinician” cleanly aligns the wording with that plurality.The statute does not, however, include details about who qualifies as a clinician, what training or credentials are required, how designations will be published, how conflicts of interest will be managed, or whether designated clinicians serve on a temporary or continuing basis. Those operational elements will fall to departmental policy, administrative practice, or subordinate regulation.
For practitioners and courts, the immediate implication is administrative: expect a government-managed process for naming clinicians, and plan for possible new procedures around referrals, fees, confidentiality and record-keeping.Finally, the consultation requirement with the chief justices is procedural rather than prescriptive: the bill requires consultation but does not define its scope or whether the chief justices’ views are binding. That gives the Minister flexibility but leaves open questions about transparency of selection and remedies if consultation is disputed.
Lawyers, child advocates and court administrators will need to watch for subsequent regulations or policy directives that set selection criteria, oversight mechanisms and appeal routes for designation decisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces subsection 38(5) of the Children’s Law Act to give the Minister authority to designate one or more persons as clinicians for court-ordered child assessments.
The Minister must consult with the Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court before making designations — the statute requires consultation but does not define its scope or consequence.
The amendment changes the Act’s internal wording (subsection 38(9)) from referring to “the clinician” to referring to “a clinician,” signaling statutory acceptance of multiple designated clinicians.
The text does not set any statutory qualifications, credentialing, training requirements, appointment terms, or oversight mechanisms for designated clinicians — those details are left to administrative practice or future regulation.
Because the Minister may name one or more persons, the change enables a centrally managed roster or recurring designation model rather than a single court-appointed expert, which can affect continuity, scheduling, and how expert evidence is produced and relied on in hearings.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ministerial designation of clinicians for court assessments
This provision replaces the existing subsection and vests formal authority in the Minister to designate clinicians who will assess and report to the court under the Act’s assessment power. Practically, it creates a statutory basis for the Department to operate or maintain a list of approved assessors, control referral pathways, and set administrative terms. The provision conditions designation on consultation with the province’s two chief justices, but it leaves open how that consultation will be documented or influence designation decisions.
Plural and non-specific reference to clinician
This is a drafting clean-up: replacing “the clinician” with “a clinician” aligns the statutory language with the new power to designate more than one person. The practical effect is to permit reports, orders, or references that assume assessments may be prepared by different designated individuals at different times; it reduces the implication of a single, named assessor per matter.
Scope, limits and what the bill leaves for implementation
The explanatory notes confirm the purpose is to authorize Ministerial designation for assessments and streamline the statutory phrasing. They also underscore what the legislation does not address: the bill omits selection criteria, conflict-of-interest rules, fee schedules, appeal or review processes for designation, and reporting or oversight requirements. Those omissions mean that the Department and court administrators will have to create protocols, or the Lieutenant Governor in Council would need to adopt regulations if a more structured framework is intended.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children and families (potentially): a centrally managed designation process can speed access to court-ordered assessments if the Department establishes a stable roster and referral pipeline.
- Department of Justice and Public Safety: gains administrative control and flexibility to manage supply of clinicians, negotiate service arrangements, and standardize procedures across cases.
- Courts and registry staff: benefit from predictable sources and processes for obtaining clinicians’ reports when the Department builds and maintains a designated list, reducing ad hoc searching for experts.
- Designated clinicians or service providers: private practitioners or agencies that secure designation may receive more steady referrals and clearer administrative terms for work in family and child-protection cases.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Justice and Public Safety: will bear the administrative burden and likely the cost of creating and managing designation processes, rosters, contracts, and oversight mechanisms.
- Individual clinicians and small assessment providers: may face new compliance requirements, vetting, or contractual obligations to be eligible for designation, and uncertain compensation structures until policy is set.
- Judges and court administrators: could face transitional friction if selection systems change midstream (questions over admissibility, continuity of experts, or scheduling), adding short-term workload to manage adjustments.
- Parents, guardians and parties to proceedings: may incur different costs or procedural burdens if the designation model alters referral pathways, increases travel requirements to approved assessors, or changes timelines for getting assessments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between efficiency and consistency on one hand—centralized designation can standardize access to qualified assessors and speed up court processes—and judicial independence and perceived impartiality on the other—placing selection power with the Minister, even with consultation, risks real or perceived executive influence over experts who inform judicial decisions.
The bill leaves several consequential implementation questions unanswered. It creates authority to designate clinicians but does not define who qualifies as a clinician, whether clinical specializations are required, how conflicts of interest will be declared or managed, or how designated clinicians will be compensated.
Those gaps mean the real-world effect will depend on administrative policy or regulations that the Department adopts after the law is enacted.
The consultation requirement with the two chief justices is vague: the statute mandates consultation but does not say whether the chief justices’ agreement is required, whether their views must be recorded, or what remedies exist if the Minister proceeds without adequate consultation. That vagueness could produce procedural disputes and appeals, or simply leave selection as a largely executive decision with only advisory judicial input.
Additionally, switching to multiple designated clinicians raises continuity risks—different assessors may produce divergent methods or reports across related proceedings—so standards and record-keeping will matter if the change is to avoid inconsistent outcomes.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.